Student Response Systems Presentation Final

2,316 views

Published on

Presentation created for Harrisburg University class, March 2010.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,316
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
54
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Graphics: SR devices – new styleInfo: title page
  • Graphics: question mark or similar replaced by hand, other srsSlide Text:noneNarration: How many people have used SRS? (Show several examples)
  • Graphics: SR devices – new styleSlide Text: objectives of presentation:Description & purposehistoryhow they workHow they are being used in various venuesComparisons of popular models and Web-based alternativesConsiderations for purchaseBest practiceNarration: Go over objectives
  • Graphics: SR devices – new style pronunciation Slide Text: Definition of SRS (ARS, electronic voting system, personal response system, etc.) CLICKERS!Narration: definition, description“technology products combining software and hardware designed to support communication and interactivity in classes”
  • Graphics: SR devices – new style pronunciation Slide Text: Definition of SRS (ARS, electronic voting system, personal response system, etc.) CLICKERS!Narration: definition, description“technology products combining software and hardware designed to support communication and interactivity in classes” Beatty 2009any system used in a face-to-face setting to poll students and gather immediate feedback in response to questions posed by instructors” Deal, 2007
  • Graphics: SR devices – new styleSlide Text: Purpose of SRSMarzano quoteNarration:What has garnered all the attention?Idea of engagement Idea of formative assessment (Marzano 2003) ability to collect dataPrivate & anonymous answer
  • Graphics: SR devices – historical model from entertainment polling?Slide Text: History of SRS~ 1st GenerationMotion picture and advertising pollingNarration:Developed in the 40sUsed extensively in Hollywood –Audience Studies InstituteTv studios and ad agencies – gage effectiveness of their productsKnob - - left for dull, all the way to “great” on the rightLater, yes/noRequired hardwiringRice University – one of first to use – system required computers
  • Graphics: SR devices – Classtalk screen, then question cycleSlide Text: Classtalk ~ 1985Narration:First popular device in education designed by NASA engineerfunded by national science foundationUsed graphing calculators with MACs and a hard-wired networkEducationally sophisticated program and many featuresIncluded question cycle (graphic)Expensive – special networks had to be installed in each classroom – Replaced by simpler systems resembling tv remotes (infrared first) that lacked the educational features
  • Graphics: screen shot: pocket pc and routerSlide Text: Free Web-based alternativesColleges numina,class in handNarration:Late 90s – colleges first to have web-based wi-fi systemsUsed pocket pcs, laptops (profs) & windows mobile softwareNumina – U of NCClass in hand – wake forest
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: Radio frequencyInfraredWeb-basedNarration:Describe the 3 methods: first were RF, like TVs, next InfraredAlso – web basedWhy it mattersCapabilityrange
  • Graphics: fade in screen shotof question constructionSlide Text: See narrationNarration:Stand-alone function ~ for use with any applicationIntegration with OfficeOnline Textbooks (Glencoe, for example)Classroom management systems (blackboardOnline educational programs (Study island)
  • Graphics: feedback graphics from T TSlide Text: Poll resultsReportsActual slidesNarration:Poll – immediate feedback; systems vary in how this can be reported – list by device numbers or student names, etc as well as agregateReports – software based display or directly to excel; others export to excel
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: Research and Observation: IndustryNarration:What comes around goes around – started in industry, continues to be a valued tool for many of the same reasons (review); esp entertainmentAppeal: same things that appeal to education: keep audience engaged, feedback from everyone in a meeting or a training as input and assessmentease of transport
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: Research and observation from: Higher EducationSRS website from U of W http://www4.uwm.edu/ltc/srs/Narration:Most prevalent in science educationSome proponents of the devicesU of Wisconsin – extensive studiesWhat the research saysFocus on overall attitude, student involvement, assessment & learningEarly research expresses some skepticism (Manna from heaven, 2005)55 colleges, 478 profs, 2777 students, 72 intro science coursesStudy showed that profs NOT utilizing innovative methods in general, although students found them helpfulUniversity of Wisconsin 2006 – more positive – 94% of profs found them valuable; 2668 students – 74% said they were beneficialData showed increase in student learning/performance; no increase is retentionMore recently – support from faculty and students (Kay and Knaack 2009)Students’ survey: easy to use, learn more (data supports this perception), like for formative assessment (checking understanding, test review); positive overall, liked least as testing tool; some students found the use of ARS stressful (unfamiliar)Teachers: engagement increases (some studies say attendance, also); effective for formative assessment
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: Research and observation: K-12Narration:Not as much research as in higher edWhat does exist – assessment studied more extensively than other usesPenuel study most comprehensive; many findings similar to those in higher ed
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: classroom environmentLearning, AssessmentNarration:Environment issues (anonymity -> participation)Learning – discussion, teachers modify on the fly, research shows connection with achievementAssessment – feedback for students and teachers, (improves learning, quality of teaching),
  • Graphics: comparison chart of popular toolsSlide Text: CostNarration:eInstruction (CPS)InterwriteH-ITTQuizdomTurning PointMost make different levels of systemsSome have LCD displaysIntegration options vary – including some that integrate with specific iwb softwareIWB:SmartPrometheanPolyvision uses Quizdom
  • Graphics: screen shot: polleverywhere; link to video?Slide Text: Free Web-based alternativesPoll EverywhereMobiOdeNarration:Poll Everywhere ~Free for 30 usersMobiode – freevesion allows for one open survey
  • Graphics: not sure yetSlide Text: Level of functioningIntegrationwith applications and softwareDataCostNarration:Manufacturers make different systems with various capabilities – simple mulitple choice to full keyboards and equationsMost integrate with other software; PPT and Other Office products (some Keynote) and Study Island, Accelerated Reader, Textbook companiesEducation week article about the future of digital textbooks; 4 dominant companies; what deals will be made?Most have ability to register answers independently of other software, and collect and save dataCost differences based mostly on capabilitiesRF vs infraredMultiple choice vs text abilityIWB-based somewhat more expensive
  • Graphics: not sure yetSlide Text: UsersAudienceTeachersNarration:Teacher and student characteristics impact use, and selection of devicesTeachers – new role in classroom (if using beyond F assessment)Comfort with technology, and troubleshootingStudents – age and grade; some students are stressed by it(cite studies for these?)
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: Best PracticesLink to SRS siteNarrationGood teaching practices!Training increases frequency of use by teachers! Introduce to students; use practice runAllow time for setting up and testing questions and devices, managing devices in the classroomUse class roster and report capapbilities
  • Graphics: SR devices in actionSlide Text: Best PracticesLink to SRS siteNarration (continued)Don’t use for attendanceDon’t use for high-stakes assessmentUse frequently throughout course or unit (truly integrate)Don’t over use in any lesson (a few questions, every 15-20 minutes or so)Use answers to pace/modify the lesson
  • Graphics: screen shot: unsureSlide Text: Power of the tool dependent on good teaching practicesPotential for increasing student achievementFuture most secure in K-12 educationFree Web-based and mobile alternatives will surge first in higher edNarration:Power of the tool dependent on good teaching practices – response systems fully integrated into lesson, use of effective questions; classroom not teacher-centricPotential for increasing student achievement – shown in research and surveys done in k-12 and higher ed; also marzanoFuture most secure in K-12 educationFree Web-based and mobile alternatives will surge first in higher ed and industry
  • Student Response Systems Presentation Final

    1. 1. Student Response Systems<br />LTMS 510<br />Susan Miller<br />
    2. 2. Question<br />How many of you have used a student <br />response system?<br />
    3. 3. Objectives<br />Description and purpose<br />History<br />How they work<br />Implementation<br />Benefits<br />Leading tools and Web 2.0 options<br />Considerations<br />Best practice<br />
    4. 4. Student Response Systems<br />Audience Response System<br />Personal Response System<br />CLICKERS!<br />Classroom Communication System<br />Electronic Voting System<br />Classroom Response System <br />
    5. 5. Student Response Systems<br />“any system used in a face-to-face setting to poll students and gather immediate feedback in response to questions posed by instructors” ~ Deal, 2007 <br />“technology products – combinations of software and hardware – designed to support communication and interactivity in classes” ~ Beatty, 2009 <br />
    6. 6. Purpose<br />Engagement<br />Collect data<br />Formative assessment<br />“Three features inherent in interactive white boards have a statistically significant relationship with student achievement. The first is the learner-response device. Using voting devices was associated with a 26 percentile point gain in student achievement.” ~ Robert Marzano, 2009.<br />
    7. 7. History ~ 1st generation<br /> Hollywood and advertising polling<br />1940s<br />Audience Studies Institute<br />Used knob; later ‘yes’ and ‘no’<br />University adoption<br />1960s<br />Rice <br />Stanford<br />Hard wiring and computers<br />
    8. 8. History ~ 2nd generation<br />Classtalk ~1985<br />1st device popular in higher education<br />Funded by National Science Foundation<br />Strong grounding in instruction<br />1990s<br />eInstruction, Educue<br />New systems easier<br /> to use<br />“Clickers”<br />
    9. 9. College Wi-Fi systems <br />laptops and Pocket PCs with Windows Mobile software<br />Project Numina and Numina II, U. of North Carolina (1999)<br />Class in Hand, Wake Forest U (2001-2003)<br />3rd Generation – Web-Based<br />
    10. 10. How they work ~ Hardware<br />Signal<br />Radio frequency<br />Infrared<br />Web-based<br />Hub<br />Devices<br />
    11. 11. Software<br />Stand-alone function ~ for use with any application<br />Integration with <br />Office<br />Online Textbooks<br />Classroom management systems <br />Online educational programs <br />
    12. 12. Poll results<br />Reports<br />Data<br />
    13. 13. Continues to be a valuable tool<br />Entertainment<br />Meetings<br />Engagement<br />Collect large amount of data<br /> quickly<br />Portability<br />Industry<br />
    14. 14. Higher Education<br />Most prevalent in math, and medical & other sciences<br />Most common usage:<br />Assessment (formative, diagnostic, summative)<br />Student engagement<br />Share feedback<br />Discussion-starter<br />Increasingly positive findings<br />Universities leading the way<br />University of Wisconsin<br />
    15. 15. K~12 Education<br />Usage mirrors higher education<br />Assessment<br />Engagement<br />Feedback<br />Discussion<br />Prepare for standardized tests<br />Provide instructional <br /> variety<br />
    16. 16. Benefits<br />Classroom environment:<br />Positive affect on attention, engagement, participation and attendance<br />Anonymity<br />Learning:<br />Discussion<br />Modification<br />Achievement<br />Assessment:<br />Regular feedback<br />Teacher and student <br />
    17. 17. eInstruction (CPS)<br />Interwrite<br />H-ITT<br />Quizdom<br />Turning Point<br />IWB-specific <br />Popular Systems<br />
    18. 18. Poll Everywhere<br />MobiOde<br />Web-Based Options<br />
    19. 19. Considerations ~ Software and Hardware <br />Level of functioning <br />Integration <br />Data management<br />Cost<br />
    20. 20. Considerations ~ The Users<br />Instructors<br />Familiarity with technology<br />Flexibility<br />Interactive white boards<br />Audience<br />Age<br />Adaptability<br />Attitude about <br /> monitoring<br />
    21. 21. Best Practice<br />Successful use dependent on good teaching /questioning practice!<br />Instructor training<br />Audience understanding of use, problem-solving<br />Allow time for design and use<br />Use class roster and <br /> reports<br />
    22. 22. Do not use for attendance-taking<br />Avoid high-stakes assessment<br />Use frequently throughout a course or unit<br />Do not over-use within a lesson<br />Use answers to pace the class<br />Best Practice<br />
    23. 23. Conclusions<br />Power of the tool dependent on good teaching practices<br />Potential for increasing student achievement<br />Future most secure in K-12 education<br />
    24. 24. References<br />(2008). What Do Wireless Response Systems Cost?. T+D, 62(6), 88. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.<br />Adams, H., & Howard, L. (2009). Clever Clickers: Using Audience Response Systems in the Classroom. Library Media Connection, 28(2), 54-56. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. <br />Beatty, I. (2004, February 3). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin, 2004(3), 1-13. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu /‌ir/‌library/‌pdf/‌ERB0403.pdf<br />Beckert, T., Fauth, E., & Olsen, K. (2009). Clicker Satisfaction for Students in Human Development: Differences for Class Type, Prior Exposure, and Student Talkativity. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 599-611. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.<br />
    25. 25. References<br />Cain, J., & Robinson, E. (2008). A Primer on Audience Response Systems: Current Applications and Future Considerations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(4), 1-6. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. <br />Deal, A. (2007, November). Classroom response systems [White paper]. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from Carengie Mellon University website: http://www.cmu.edu/‌teaching/‌resources /‌PublicationsArchives/‌ StudiesWhitepapers/‌ClassroomResponse_Nov07.pdf<br />Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Laura, W. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. In Better education inc. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.bedu.com/‌Publications/‌UMASS.html<br />Edens, K. (2008). The Interaction of Pedagogical Approach, Gender, Self-Regulation, and Goal Orientation Using Student Response System Technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 161-177. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. <br />
    26. 26. References<br />EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2005, May 15). Seven things you should know about clickers [Educause learning Initiavie]. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://www.educause.edu/‌ELI/‌7ThingsYouShouldKnowAboutClick/‌156805<br />Ferriter, W. (2009). Student Responders: Feedback at Their Fingertips. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 83-84. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. <br />Jay, H., Jensen, M., & Moore, R. (2005, July/‌August). Manna from heaven or clickers from hell? Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7), 36-39. Retrieved from http://ctl.stanford.edu/‌PRS/‌Hatch_Jensen_Moore_PRS _College_Bio.pdf<br />Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the Use of Audience Response Systems in Secondary School Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(5), 382-392. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9153-7. <br />
    27. 27. References<br />Kay, R., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.<br />Keller, C., Finkelstein, N., Perkins, K., Pollock, S., Turpen, C., & Dubson, M. (2007). Research-based Practices For Effective Clicker Use. AIP Conference Proceedings, 951(1), 128-131. doi:10.1063/1.2820913.<br />LaRose, J. (2009). Engage Your Audience. Professional Safety, 54(6), 58-62. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.<br />Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. <br />
    28. 28. References<br />Penuel, W., Boscardin, C., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(4), 315-346. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4.<br />Student response systems (SRS). (2010). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www4.uwm.edu/‌ltc/‌srs/<br />Photos:<br />Classtalk: http://www.bedu.com<br />Turning Technologies: http://www.turningtechnologies.com<br />eInstruction: http://www.einstruction.com/<br />Poll Everywhere: http://www.polleverywhere.com<br />Responders in public schools: http://www.nytimes.com<br />Responders in industry and higher education: AP Photo and http://www.gettyimages.com<br />

    ×